Engage directory structure
michelle.dsouza at utoronto.ca
Wed Sep 23 13:41:48 UTC 2009
I'm glad this conversation has started - these are exactly the types
of things I was hoping would come out.
The structure I was proposing was the svn structure for engage. Since
we work of the 'fluid-all' externals project, this structure would be
like a sibling to Infusion. So right now, the 'lib' folder may not
hold anything but in an Infusion like way, as soon as we add third
party dependencies, these would be in 'lib'. Another note on this
structure is that 'kettle' should probably be called 'engage-server'.
I'm not sure what it would look like inside the 'engage-server'
directory - perhaps someone could take a stab at this?
Does this make sense? Does it still support being able to build a
deployable WAR of engage easily?
On 22-Sep-09, at 5:40 PM, antranig at caret.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> Hi there - I think this looks reasonable, but I think it will be
> hard to make
> any firm decisions "at 10,000 feet" (without a plane!) without working
> through some of the fine-grained issues that this brings up. An
> issue is what kind of separation we expect between the parts of
> for example, which are dependent on the Java infrastructure (or even
> *are* the Java infrastructure) and those parts which are pure JS.
> Ominously, of course, this is the kind of issue that depends on us
> stabilised some kind of reasonable IoC infrastructure, though that
> prevent us making some kind of interim decision now.
> What would the "lib" directory contain? Infusion?
> And if we had a "services" webapp, what would go in it?
> We should bear in mind that if we are planning for this to coexist
> in a
> M2 build structure it needs to work sensibly with respect to "WAR
> whereby a composite WAR image is build up, in effect, by simply
> all the WARs into a common directory and then zipping them up again.
> In "the bad days" this was a problem given that it meant that paths at
> development time would differ from those at deploy time - but this
> of slack can now be taken up by "mounts". The problem we do have
> is to make sure that somehow that the component WARs do not contain
> contents that collide. This can be awkward, especially since M2 often
> insists that they have some kind of web.xml file ...
> Quoting Yura Zenevich <yura.zenevich at gmail.com>:
>> I was just wondering what kettle directory would mean inside this
>> Would it include all kettle server infrastructure and all the
>> apps, or these two would be defined somehow separately?
>> On Sep 22, 2009 5:22 PM, "Colin Clark" <colinbdclark at gmail.com>
>> Hi Michelle and everyone else,
>> On 21-Sep-09, at 3:44 PM, Michelle D'Souza wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>> As we approach the 0.1 release of Engage we need to decide on the
>>> structure of the engage trunk. Here is a suggestion which is based
>>> on the
>>> Infusion structure. Please comment and suggest alternatives. One
>>> question I
>>> have - should there be a services directory? What would go in there?
>> How does this sit with the standard directory structure expected by
>> Maven 2?
>> I'd love to hear from Antranig and Yura about this proposed directory
>> structure and if it will suit our needs.
>> In the end, our goal is to make building Engage as simple as
>> possible. Since
>> it's currently based on Kettle's JVM-based approach, Maven is
>> probably the
>> way this will be built. If we need to add an Ant script for other
>> build-related tasks, we can look at that, too.
>> Colin Clark
>> Technical Lead, Fluid Project
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Software Developer, Fluid Project
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
University of Toronto
More information about the fluid-work